COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-17994 DATE: 20210601
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Emira Sokoli Applicant
– and –
Selami Sokoli Respondent
Theodora J. Oprea, for the Applicant
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. Kraft, J.
[1] The applicant, who is 52 years old, and the respondent who was 61 years old, were married on November 22, 1990, and separated on June 1, 2017. The parties are originally from Albania and have been living in Canada since about 2005.
[2] There are 3 children of the marriage, two of whom are independent adults and one of whom, Enes Sokoli, was born on May 29, 2003 and is currently 17 years of age (“Enes”).
[3] The parties are living separate and apart in the matrimonial home, which is jointly-owned by them. The matrimonial home, municipally known as 88 Loganberry Crescent, North York Ontario (“matrimonial home”), was purchased in or around 2013.
[4] On July 22, 2020, the applicant issued the within Application seeking a divorce; partition and sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home; child support for Enes, to commence once the matrimonial home is sold; an order for the exclusive possession of the matrimonial home; an order for the equal division of their jointly-held property; equalization of net family property and costs.
[5] On August 24, 2020, the respondent, Selami Sokoli, was personally served with the Application and Financial Statement, sworn on July 22, 2020, by a process server at the matrimonial home.[^1] The respondent has not served and filed any responding material with respect to this matter, despite having notice of the proceeding and been properly served. The respondent has chosen not to contest the Application. As a result, the applicant seeks an order noting the respondent in default to enable her to proceed with a uncontested trial.
Relief Sought
[6] On April 14, 2021, nine months after serving the respondent with her Application and Financial statement, the applicant served the following documents on the respondent, both by mail and email:
a. a Form 14B;
b. Form 23C; Affidavit for Uncontested Trial, sworn on April 13, 2021,
c. updated financial statement, sworn on April 13, 2021; and
d. draft Order.[^2]
[7] On April 22, 2021, the applicant served a Form 36; her affidavit for divorce, sworn on April 22, 2021, on the respondent, by mail and email.[^3]
[8] The respondent has not responded to any of the documents that have been served on him. He has chosen not to participate in this action.
[9] The applicant seeks the following relief:
a. An order noting the respondent in default;
b. An order severing the divorce from the corollary relief and that the applicant may seek a divorce on an uncontested basis;
c. an order for the immediate listing and sale of the home, located at 88 Loganberry Crescent, North York, Ontario M2H 2H1 (“matrimonial home”) by an agent and on terms as chosen by the applicant;
d. an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home;
e. an order dispensing with the respondent’s signature with respect to the listing and sale of the matrimonial home and an order that the applicant may sell the matrimonial home without the consent or signature of the respondent;
f. an order that the parties shall cooperate in the showing and sale of the home;
g. an order that the applicant shall solely determine whether to accept an offer presented or the terms of the offer;
h. an order that the applicant shall use the real estate lawyer of her choice for the sale of the home;
i. an order for the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home be paid out to the parties in equal shares on closing;
j. an order that commencing June 1, 2021, for as long as child support is to be paid, the respondent shall provide updated income disclosure to the applicant each year by June 1st, in accordance with section 24.1 of the Child Support Guidelines; and
k. an order for costs of the proceeding.
[10] The respondent has not served or filed any responding material with respect to this matter, despite having notice of the proceeding and being duly served.
Noting the Respondent in Default
[11] Rule 10 of the Family Law Rules (”FLRs”) addresses Answering a case. Specifically, Rule 10(5) indicates that if a respondent does not serve and file an Answer, the consequences set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of subrule 1(8.4) apply.
[12] Rule 1(8.4) sets out what happens if a respondent failed to file an answer within the time required by the rules, or if his or her answer is truck out. Rule 1(8.4) states:
If an order is made striking out a party’s application, answer, motion to change or response to motion to change in a case, the following consequences apply unless a court orders otherwise:
a. The party is not entitled to any further notice of steps in the case, except as provided by subrule 25(13) (service of order):
b. The party is not entitled to participate in a case in any way;
c. The court may deal with the case and the party’s absence;
d. A date may be set for the uncontested trial of the case.
[13] In the circumstances of this case:
a. The respondent was personally served with the Application and Financial Statement on August 24, 2020, and failed to file an Answer in the time prescribed by the FLRs;
b. The respondent was served with the applicant’s material for an uncontested trial on April 14, 2021, and failed to respond to the material; and
c. The respondent was served with the applicant’s affidavit to proceed with the divorce on April 22, 2021, and failed to respond.
[14] Accordingly, I order the respondent be noted in default to enable the applicant to proceed with the uncontested trial of this matter.
Partition and Sale of the Matrimonial Home
[15] The parties purchased the matrimonial home in 2013. It is jointly owned by them.
[16] Since separation, the parties have continued to pay for the operating expenses associated with the matrimonial home. There is no evidence before court as to whether the parties are sharing these expenses equally or contributing to them in some unequal proportion.
[17] The parties have a jointly-held mortgage in favour of TD Canada Trust registered on title to the matrimonial home. As of December 2017, the outstanding principal amount on the mortgage was $264,725.99. The court was not provided with the information as to what the outstanding amount of the mortgage was on the date of separation, June 1, 2017.
[18] As of April 13, 2021, the outstanding balance of the mortgage was $301,462.13.
[19] The applicant deposes that she has tried to engage in discussions with the respondent about the sale of the matrimonial home, the parties’ only significant asset, but, that the respondent, refuses to discuss this matter with her. Specifically, the respondent has refused to respond to the applicant’s lawyer’s communication regarding the sale of the matrimonial home; and he has refused to engage with the applicant directly when she has tried to discuss the sale of the home with him and on the last occasion she did so, he became aggressive and threatened her.
[20] In her Affidavit in Support of the Uncontested Trial, the applicant deposes as follows:
a. There is a history of verbal, emotional and physical abuse by the respondent toward the applicant;
b. The respondent was physically abusive toward the applicant in or around 2016;
c. The respondent has violent episodes where he has destroyed and broken items in the home;
d. The respondent has suicidal ideations and the applicant believes he is depressed. When the applicant has encouraged the respondent to get help to address his mental health issues, as did his family, the respondent refused;
e. In 2017, the respondent told the applicant he wanted a divorce. Both parties sought legal advice to obtain an amicable divorce. The respondent then changed his mind and said he wanted to sell the matrimonial home first. The respondent then changed his mind and told the applicant he wanted to purchase her half-interest in the matrimonial home. The respondent then changed his mind, again, and said he did not want either of them to retain the matrimonial home;
f. The parties listed the matrimonial home for sale in 2018 for approximately 3 months. They did not receive an offer to purchase the home;
g. The eldest daughter wanted to move out of the matrimonial home and the parties refinanced the mortgage to assist her with a down payment on a condominium in or around 2019;
h. The parties have slept in separate bedrooms since 2016. Since the separation in 2017, the parties have made no efforts to reconcile;
i. The applicant has had no alternative but to continue to reside with the respondent in the matrimonial home, separate and apart, because the respondent has thwarted her efforts to divide their assets; and
j. The applicant cannot afford alternate accommodation without obtaining her equity from the matrimonial home.
[21] Section 2 of the Partition Act provides as follows:
All joint tenants, tenants in common, and coparceners, all doweresses, and parties entitled to dower, tenants by the curtesy, mortgagees or other creditors having liens on, and all parties interested in, to or out of, any land in Ontario, may be compelled to make or suffer partition or sale of the land, or any part thereof, whether the estate is legal and equitable or equitable only. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, s. 2.
[22] Given that title to the matrimonial home is held jointly by the parties; the claims of the applicant to a 50% interest in the matrimonial home; and the fact that the parties are married, the parties meet the section at the very least, as parties interested in the matrimonial home as contemplated by the Partition Act.
[23] The Court of Appeal addressed partition and sale in Silva v. Silva (1990), 1990 BCCA 5400, 30 R.F.L. (3d) 117, 75 D.L.R. (4th), 1 O.R. (3d) 436 (C.A.); and Martin v. Martin (1990), 1990 ONSC 12225, 31 R.F.L. (3d) 210 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.), aff’d at (1991), 1991 ONSCDC 12830, 34 R.F.L. (3d) 173 (Ont. Div. Ct.), rev’d in part at (1992), 1992 ONCA 7402, 38 R.F.L. (3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.). The Court recognized that a joint owner has a prima facie right to partition and sale; however, as stated by the Court in Silva at para. 23:
... where substantial rights in relation to jointly owned property are likely to be jeopardized by an order for partition and sale, an application under the Partition Act should be deferred until the matter is decided under the F.L.A. Putting it more broadly, an application under s. 2 should not proceed where it can be shown that it would prejudice the rights of either spouse under the F.L.A.
[24] In Greenbanktree Power Corp. v. Coinamatic Canada Inc. 2004 ONCA 48652, 2004 CarswellOnt 5407, [2004] O.J. No. 5158, 136 A.C.W.S. (3d) 161, 193 O.A.C. 204, 75 O.R. (3d) 478 (C.A.), Laskin J.A. wrote:
…In our view, "oppression" properly includes hardship and that a judge can refuse partition and sale because hardship to the co-tenant resisting the application would be of such a nature as to amount to oppression.
[25] The onus is on the party resisting partition or sale to demonstrate sufficient reasons for refusal: Davis v. Davis, supra; Silva v. Bettencourt, [2002] O.J. No. 1878 (Ont. S.C.J.): Brienza v. Brienza 2014 ONSC 6942, 2014 CarswellOnt 16820, [2014] O.J. No. 5742, 247 A.C.W.S. (3d) 706 (Ont. S.C.J.).
[26] In the circumstances of this case, the respondent has not filed a defence to the Application, nor has he chosen to participate in these proceedings. The respondent has had ample opportunity to advance any claims he may have. There is no prejudice to the respondent if the court orders the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home, especially if the net proceeds of sale are held in trust, pending further court order or agreement of the parties. The respondent has a half-interest in the net sale proceeds just as the applicant has. Further, the respondent consented to the sale of the home and listed it for sale for a brief period in 2018. Accordingly, I order the sale of the matrimonial home and that it be listed for sale immediately.
[27] The applicant asks for an order dispensing with the respondent’s consent to the sale of the matrimonial home and for an order that she have carriage of the sale of the matrimonial home. The respondent has indicated a complete refusal to address the applicant’s attempts to sell the matrimonial home. Given the history between the parties and the circumstances described by the applicant with regard to the respondent’s volatility and tendency toward aggression and violent outbursts when she raises the sale of the matrimonial home with him, her concerns that the respondent may obstruct the sale of the home and/or not cooperate with the showings is valid. Accordingly, I therefore, dispense with the respondent’s consent to the sale of the matrimonial home, and order that the applicant shall have full carriage of the sale, including the choice of the listing agent; listing price; and choice of real estate lawyer. She shall be authorized to execute any document on behalf of the respondent required to effect the sale of the matrimonial home. The applicant shall provide copies of all documents executed by her to the respondent.
Exclusive Possession of the Matrimonial Home
[28] The applicant seeks an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. She deposes that the respondent has created an unbearable environment in the home, which has caused her stress and anxiety. Additionally, the applicant deposes that she has serious concerns that the respondent will not cooperate with the sale of the home, and actively frustrate the sale, as his conduct to date has demonstrated that he does not wish to sell the home.
[29] Section 24 of the Family Law Act authorizes the court to grant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to one spouse. Relevant factors in granting such an order are: the best interests of the children including the effects of a move and the wishes of the children, existing equalization or support orders, the financial positions of both spouses, written agreements, the availability of other accommodation, and whether there is a history of family violence.
[30] While the wife’s affidavit for uncontested trial indicates that the respondent has been non- responsive to her attempts to sell the matrimonial home, she does not indicate that there has been any violence since 2017. The parties have resided in the matrimonial home together, albeit living separate and apart, for the last four years, since 2017, without any serious issue. Given the respondent’s failure to Answer the wife’s claims and his refusal to participate in the action, the Court is unable to determine with assuredness whether there has been sufficient or reliable evidence of the existence or level of such conduct that might amount to “violence” required to grant the applicant exclusive possession.
[31] Furthermore, the court has no evidence as to whether or not there is available and affordable accommodation for the respondent if an exclusive possession order in favour of the applicant were made. The Notices of Assessment for the respondent, which have been provided by the applicant, indicate that his line 150 income is approximately $12,900 a year from WSIB. Accordingly, it is impossible for the court to know if an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home in favor of the applicant would prejudice the respondent, such that he has no other available affordable accommodation. Accordingly, I decline to grant the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending its sale.
[32] However, the court accepts that the circumstances in the matrimonial home are stressful and anxiety-provoking for the applicant. With the matrimonial home listed for sale immediately, the hope is that the parties will not have to continue to live, separate and apart, in the same residence for much longer.
Division of Matrimonial House Proceeds
[33] The applicant seeks an order that upon the closing of the sale of the matrimonial home, the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home be paid out to the parties in equal shares, following disbursement of the mortgages, liens and payment of legal costs. Although the applicant is not seeking, as part of her relief set out in her Affidavit for Uncontested Trial (Form 23C), an order for an equalization of net family property, her Application issued July 22, 2020 sets out that she is seeking an order for equalization of net family property, pursuant to Part I of the Family Law Act.
[34] The financial statement of the applicant, sworn on July 22, 2020, filed with her initial Application, does not set out a figure for the applicant’s net family property. Instead, the applicant’s net family property is listed as “TBD”. I note that the applicant has not obtained a Family Law Value of her pension with the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (she deposes she has worked there since 2009). She has not listed the cash surrender value in her life insurance policy, if any, on the date of separation. Both of these assets need to be valued, before it can be determined which spouse owes the other an equalization payment.
[35] I note that the applicant’s updated financial statement, sworn on April 13, 2021 (9 months later), filed in support of the relief she requests in the Uncontested Trial continues to indicate that she has not obtained the Family Law Value of her pension with the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan nor has she determined whether there is any cash surrender value in her life insurance plan.
[36] Since the respondent has not provided any financial disclosure it is impossible for the court to determine which spouse owes the other an equalization payment. Accordingly, an order releasing each party’s half-share of the net proceeds of sale from the sale of the matrimonial home upon its closing, could be prejudicial to either party’s claims for division of property pursuant to Part I of the Family Law Act. Accordingly, I order that the net proceeds of sale of the sale of the matrimonial home, after payment of encumbrances registered on title to the property; liens and legal fees related to the sale, be held in trust by a real estate late lawyer until further agreement of the parties or court order.
Child Support
[37] The applicant seeks child support for the parties’ youngest child, Enes, to commence once the matrimonial home is sold. Enes will be graduating from high school this month. The applicant indicates that Enes intends to pursue post- secondary university studies and that he will continue to reside with her even once the matrimonial home is sold.
[38] The applicant seeks an order that the court impute income to the respondent in the sum of $64,900 annually.
[39] Section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”) addresses various situations where a spouse’s disclosed income does not fairly reflect what the spouse should pay in child support, and where a court may impute income to a spouse. Section 19(1) of the Guidelines is intended to capture cases that require an adjustment to a payor’s presumptive income and provide the court with discretion to impute income when it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances. One of these circumstances, is for a spouse who does not provide proper disclosure of income information or to adjust a payor’s income to compensate for income tax treatment. If the respondent is earning income that is not included in the calculation of his income for income tax purposes, as alleged by the wife, then the court would consider that cash income for support purposes.
[40] The case law is clear that where it appears cash income is undeclared for income tax purposes, it should be grossed up to a likely pre-tax amount for purposes of calculating a party’s income for support purposes: Mallany v. Mallany, [2010] O.J. No. 35684 (Ont. S.C.J.). The applicant, however, did not make submissions regarding a gross-up of the cash income she deposes the respondent earns. Further, the applicant did not supply the court with evidence as to what the respondent earned in construction before his injury when he was not collecting WSIB, which would be an indicator of his past income earning ability.
[41] The applicant deposes as follows:
a. Throughout the marriage both parties have been employed. The applicant is a high school teacher employed by the Toronto District School Board since 2009. Her sworn financial statement, dated April 13, 2021, indicates that she earned $100,294 last year;
b. According to the applicant, the respondent has been working in the construction industry. In or around 2006, the respondent had an accident at work and, as a result, did not work for a number of years. According to the applicant, the respondent was involved in vocational training and customer service but did not pursue this endeavor. Since 2006, the respondent has been receiving WSIB benefits. Attached as Exhibit “B” to the applicant’s Affidavit in Support of the Uncontested Trial are copies of the respondent’s Notices of Assessment for 2017, 2018 and 2019. In 2019, the respondents line 150 income was $12,916. In 2018, the respondents line 150 income was $12,628. In 2017, the respondents line 150 income was $12,439;
c. The applicant deposes that the respondent began working in construction in or around 2011/2012 but, that he is self-employed and earns cash income which he does not report to CRA. The applicant further submits that the respondent is secretive about his work and does not tell her or the children where he goes on a daily basis. However, the applicant deposes that the respondent goes to work every day, 5 to 6 days a week, and leaves the home with his tools; and
d. The applicant submits that the respondent would typically charge approximately $200 a day for his contract work. She calculates that if the respondent is working 5 days a week, for 52 weeks of the year, at a rate of $200 a day, his income would amount to $52,000 a year, without considering the amount he receives from WSIB. The applicant adds the $52,000 a year with the respondent’s Line 150 income, to reach an annual income of $64,900.
[42] The respondent has not participated in these proceedings nor has he provided any financial disclosure. It is impossible, in the circumstances. for the court to impute income to the respondent a $64,900 a year for support purposes. as sought by the applicant. If the court had evidence, such as copies of the respondent’s bank statements or credit card statements, from which it could evidence a lifestyle that would only be able to be supported by additional income, other than the WSIB income being earned by the respondent, the court could perhaps draw the negative inferences against the respondent, the applicant seeks it to do. However, on the applicant’s sworn statements alone, without any third-party evidence to support the claims the applicant makes regarding the income the respondent earns from construction work, an imputation of income order cannot be made in the circumstances, at this time.
[43] Accordingly, I order the respondent to file a sworn financial statement within 30 days along with the disclosure required by the Child Support Guidelines.
Severance of the Divorce from the Corollary Relief
[44] The applicant seeks an order severing the divorce from the corollary relief so she may seek a divorce on an uncontested basis. In support of her claim, she filed an Affidavit for Divorce and a copy of her divorce certificate. In her Affidavit for Divorce, the applicant sets out that the arrangements in place for the support of the children is that the respondent is paying $604 a month as table child support based on an annual income of $64,900 pursuant to the Guidelines. In other words, the applicant assumes the court will make the order she seeks, to impute the respondent, with an annual income of $64,900 for child support purposes.
[45] Although the parties have been residing in Ontario for at least a year prior to the commencing of the applicant’s Application and, despite the fact that the parties have been separated for over one year, it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself that reasonable arrangements have been made of the support of any children of the marriage and, if such arrangements have not been made, having regard to the applicable Child Support Guidelines, to stay the granting of the divorce until such arrangements are made: s.11(1)(b) of the Divorce Act.
[46] In this case, without an ability to determine the respondent’s income for support purposes or his corresponding child support obligation, the court cannot satisfy itself that there are reasonable arrangements in place for child support for Enes. Accordingly, until such time as evidence is available to court as to the respondent’s income for support purpose and an order for child support can be made for Enes, the divorce cannot be severed from the corollary relief.
Disposition
[47] Order to go as follows:
a. Pursuant to Rule 10(5) of the Family Law Rules, the respondent, Selami Sokoli, is hereby noted in default for his failure to serve and file an Answer.
b. Pursuant to Rule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, the applicant, Ermira Sokoli, may proceed with her uncontested trial of her claims.
c. Pursuant to s.23 of the Family Law Act and s.2 of the Partition Act, the matrimonial home, municipally known as 88 Loganberry Crescent, North York, Ontario M2H 2H1 (“matrimonial home”), shall be immediately listed for sale and sold and the respondent’s need to consent to its sale and terms of its sale, is hereby dispensed with.
d. Pursuant to s.23 of the Family Law Act, the applicant shall have full carriage of the sale of the matrimonial home, such that
i. She shall choose a listing agent of her choice and select the terms of sale without the need for the consent of the respondent;
ii. The requirement of the respondent to sign any and all necessary documentation in connection with the sale of the matrimonial home is hereby dispensed with, such that the applicant shall be permitted to sell the matrimonial home without the consent or signature of the respondent;
iii. The applicant shall solely determine whether to accept an offer presented or the terms of the offer;
iv. The applicant shall provide the respondent with copies of the listing agreement and details of any and all offers to purchase the matrimonial home; and
v. The applicant shall choose a real estate lawyer of her choice for the closing of the sale transaction.
e. Pursuant to s.23 of the Family Law Act, the parties shall cooperate in the showings and sale of the matrimonial home. The applicant shall provide the respondent with as much advance notice as possible of any house showings;
f. Pursuant to s.23 of the Family Law Act, upon the closing of the sale of the matrimonial home, after payment of encumbrances registered on title, liens and legal fees associated with the sale are made, the net proceeds of sale shall be held in trust by the real estate lawyer, pending further court order or agreement of the parties.
g. Pursuant to s.15.1 of the Divorce Act; ss.16, 19 and 21 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the respondent shall serve and file a sworn financial statement within 30 days of this Order, along with the following disclosure:
i. A copy of every personal income tax return filed by the respondent for each of the 3 most recent taxation years;
ii. a copy of every notice of assessment and re-assessment issued to the respondent for each of the 3 most recent taxation years;
iii. the most recent statement of earnings indicating the total earnings paid to the respondent in the year to date, including overtime or, where such a statement is not provided by the employer, a letter from the respondent’s employer setting out that information including the spouse’s rate of annual salary or remuneration;
iv. if the respondent is self-employed, for the 3 most recent taxation years
the financial statements of the respondent’s business or professional practice, other than a partnership, and
a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the respondent does not deal at arm’s length;
v. if the respondent controls a corporation, for its 3 most recent taxation years, a) the financial statements of the Corp. and its subsidiaries, and b) a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation, and every related corporation does not deal at arm’s length;
vi. if the respondent is a beneficiary under a trust, a copy of the trust settlement agreement and copies of the trust’s 3 most recent financial statement; and
vii. in addition to any income information that must be included above, where the respondent receives income from employment insurance, social assistance, a pension, worker’s compensation, disability payments or any other source, the most recent statement of income indicating the total amount of income from the applicable source during the current year, or if such statement is not provided, a letter from the appropriate authority stating the required documentation.
h. The applicant shall obtain the Family Law Value of her Ontario Teacher’s Plan Pension as at the date of marriage, if applicable, and as at the date of separation.
i. The parties shall arrange a case conference, on a date agreeable to both parties and counsel, to address the issues of the calculation of each party’s net family property and the corresponding equalization payment; the release of sale proceeds of the matrimonial home; and income determination of the respondent for child support purposes. If the respondent does not appear at the case conference upon being service with a Notice of Case conference, the applicant shall be permitted to proceed with the uncontested trial of the remaining issues which, include but are not limited to:
i. Property division under the Family Law Act;
ii. Child support and the determination of the respondent’s income for support purposes;
iii. the release of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home upon the closing of its sale; and
iv. the divorce.
j. The applicant’s motion for exclusive possession is denied. If the respondent is obstructive in the sale of the matrimonial home, such that he is not cooperating with house showings or is actively interfering with the sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant has leave to return her motion for exclusive possession on two days’ notice to the respondent, without the need for a case conference on this issue.
k. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of this trial in the amount of $1,500 (inclusive of HST and disbursements).
Kraft, J.
Released: June 1, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-17994
DATE: 20210601
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Emira Sokoli
Applicant
– and –
Selami Sokoli
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Kraft, J.
Released: June 1, 2021
[^1]: Form 6B, Affidavit of Tony Chiappa, process server, sworn on April 25, 2020, confirms that the respondent was served personally on August 24, 2020 at 5:20 p.m. at the matrimonial home with the Application, sworn Financial Statement, along with blank forms 6B, 10; 13.1 to enable him to respond.
[^2]: Form 6B, Affidavit of Service of Olivia Oprea, partner of the law firm representing the applicant, sworn on April 14, 2021, confirms that the respondent was served on April 14, 2021, at 1:27 p.m. with the applicant’s 14B; Form 23C; Form 13.1 and Draft Order, by email and mail.
[^3]: Form 6B, Affidavit of Service of Olivia Oprea, partner of the law firm representing the applicant, sworn on April 22, 2021, confirms that the respondent was served on April 22, 2021, at 3:16 p.m. with the applicant’s Form 36, affidavit for divorce, by mail and email.